Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme

Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> Wed, 13 April 2016 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <phluid61@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB53012D506; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sRpsJtKGZ0sI; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x231.google.com (mail-ig0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DE9C12D18F; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-x231.google.com with SMTP id gy3so132092175igb.0; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=yYxpPKrjK1E/zSfuandGLldDzvOEJh40RbFc3+iBQa0=; b=1GH+Sb7Co1fsZ+t/GY5tH6iT7ieJNI3In26cQy6whsNeWYyO8/SM9AW/lvjduscFiC V+vFe4wboUH47wPGqwHrMPugK5TCTslA75oTE78bnzG2pb9MfGBjP9rjH/g0MHLZLvME vVaGJMRt8ChaBZNH5Ez+gaUbFFkOeIMvd3mg2pk4KXFi66FjiZiQUJkH3YbGPjdgBvrb 0vRCFOOM26nyuhfjBdOnqvmJvmnOE+/6x8NGXhmiotccBdLPRJrs2U4tIabYqkwdbhlK c7ls2K73SQ45C5/CTCLHZufjV8Riy9CqpuYl3jMqkv3DvzDZvAr/Lnl1KaUm+0eH9Pkl k+HQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=yYxpPKrjK1E/zSfuandGLldDzvOEJh40RbFc3+iBQa0=; b=OIx1OLI8HyT1TMfAnj0vLw83zv4mjhFVKjn+whD2WkSN2wgZYlRsqFj/Mem+pIKX3D HCOiAYy3lKkQTmnyHtp6qdC+o6sTunu6IAg3tnU4rl/7EHPlZyhOyAAQ/ZqKJlBN7Lc2 m2hxG3D8G8yPtntk/BEtptIw5x5mVL6BidVLcPoraR4+1sRiVcZ6+HGvcDH4UVUCxec/ UKYHM2r5NN2adNGTO8HauRPZGpOC0Zf9Zde0Wu+wiP9W9FYCmj+0TVR5m/mOsERHENcW ERJCfO+c1AFl6oPPle+Qxv6R6YzRadqILtsR35OgmRnf/zisbnI5kT3WpynjN4puqjwl EzKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJDzuOm39F67d1e0MkeSqBm6IMbv2fNkvPvv4qiBkCzosoeMtbiMQMu7hPlkixeO1+Q3kUqMGWceh/KoA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.27.39 with SMTP id q7mr34334470igg.34.1460582138453; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: phluid61@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.166.78 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACweHND-OX+5okkJ+oE=6UN84x+CFtPBpMnU8HqaPbgQgJ_oWA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <570D4C99.1030405@dcrocker.net> <CACweHND-OX+5okkJ+oE=6UN84x+CFtPBpMnU8HqaPbgQgJ_oWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 07:15:38 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: WWGXUaLMoEBpr3Rk15zXpO8gBX8
Message-ID: <CACweHNAAYeW-368VUC=xELYuDJfh99sxeH1=beOmjCpAAXjHAQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b10ce15872b3b05306447a0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/t0w2er9y6DB7SNr-iSKpBs8J0PE>
Cc: Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:15:41 -0000

On 13 April 2016 at 18:28, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote:

>
> On 13 April 2016 at 05:29, Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>    Throughout this document the term "local" is used to describe files
>>>    that can be accessed directly through the local file system.  It is
>>>    important to note that a local file may not be physically located on
>>>    the local machine, for example if a networked file system is
>>>    transparently mounted into the local file system.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not exactly sure what 'accessed directly' means, in the modern world
>> of file systems.  Unfortunately, this is cast as a major point of
>> concern in the document.  How is 'directly' different from 'no authority
>> value is specified'?
>>
>>
> Um, I mean something like "...can be access through the local file system
> API without explicitly establishing network connections or engaging network
> protocols." I don't know if that's any better.
>
>
Actually that's not precisely what I mean either. I think what I mean is:
can be accessed using only the information included in the file path (i.e.
not relying on other information such as a network address.)

That definition is a bit hairy for file naming schemes that include network
addresses (like UNC, or VMS with a node reference.)

Cheers
-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/